-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GTA 4
- Thread starter UbiSoftologist
- Start date
SolidSnakex
Member
Mrbob said:
And DQ went to the PSone because FF built the RPG fanbase on that system. There were clear reasons for those to switch platforms, there's yet to be one for GTA to switch platforms.
Exactly! GTA is going on the platform with the largest user base. How the hell is that guaranteed to be the PS3 at this point in time? That's why I'm rolling my eyes at Mrbob.Mooreberg said:
FF and DQ would have been on the N64 or the Saturn if they'd sold more than the PS1 - guaranteed.
Jonnyram said:
Really? Because the N64 was nearly even with the PSone when FFVII was announced. I still remember the EGM issue where they previewed FF7 (Before internet era), I opened it up and saw it was PSONE game and went OMGWTF. It was a shocker.
That's how my reaction will be too if next gen GTA is on X360 first. It will not happen. No matter how badly you want Sony to fail.
Also, what about the Xbox 360 lineup makes you think the system will sell in gangbusters. Wait till TGS. I'd love to make X360 one console future for me but I don't see it coming close to PS3.
Not in Japan, it wasn't. N64 only sold well in the US. It tanked pretty badly in Japan (compared to the PS1).Mrbob said:
I don't want Sony to fail at all... I want heated competition instead of a one-horse race.That's how my reaction will be too if next gen GTA is on X360 first. It will not happen. No matter how badly you want Sony to fail.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
From this generation, do you realize Sony would have to lose 50 million units sold worldwide and Microsoft would have to sell 30 million units more worldwide for them to be EVEN at 50 million each?Jonnyram said:
I'd bet the X360 sells alot more than the XBox, but it will still be double-digit millions behind the PS3. Sony has shown no sign of any weakness that would cripple them to the point of coming in second place. This time, they have the power and storage advantage, and according to PSM, they are copying alot of XBox Live so that's a plus over this gen too. You can even say that their online structure will suck and I'd bet the PS3 still comes out on top.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Jonnyram said:
n64 wasn't even out by the time they announced FF7 for Playstation. IIRC from the issue of EGM i saw it in, i think the switch was announced (which wasn't really a switch, because FF7 was never formally an N64 game) around the time of e3 '95, before the PSX was even out in the states. It had nothing to do with its japanese (or potential japanese) sales. and IIRC, Playstation was doing alright at the time in Japan, but sales really skyrocketed when Square announced it would be getting FF7
Amused_To_Death
Member
What prevents Microsoft from buying Rockstar's parent company and making GTA exclusive to the Xbox360? Halo and GTA in the hands of Microsoft, Sony is dead in the water...Console war is over!!! 
SolidSnakex
Member
Spike said:
For the consumer atleast, isn't it better to know you can buy 1 console and most of the major titles released in that gen? If you've got 2 or even 3 strong consoles that'll likely spread exclusives around to all of them making it where you need to own them all.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
It's not like we don't know anything to base intelligent speculation on. It has always been up to the current generation leader to fuck up in some way (or many ways) for there to be a change. Atari fucked up to let Nintendo in, Nintendo fucked up to let Sony in and now its up to Sony to fuck up for MS or Nintendo to have a chance, especially at the margins this generation will end at.Blackace said:
or according to your theory, Infinium has just as good a chance as Nintendo, MS or Sony to be the market leader?
All three systems could sell fifty million units and we'd still be stuck with only one NFL game to play every year for most of the generation. :lol
Competition among third parties amounts to much more of a consumer benefit than anything else. Games have been cheaper than ever in the past few years because companies have been releasing more games than retailers have shelf space for. Maybe this is something that will change with publishers being less willing to bet on titles that they don't perceive to be guaranteed hits. But most of the competition (or lack of it) is going to come from EA vs. Take 2, Sega vs. Namco, etc.
Competition among third parties amounts to much more of a consumer benefit than anything else. Games have been cheaper than ever in the past few years because companies have been releasing more games than retailers have shelf space for. Maybe this is something that will change with publishers being less willing to bet on titles that they don't perceive to be guaranteed hits. But most of the competition (or lack of it) is going to come from EA vs. Take 2, Sega vs. Namco, etc.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
yes and no.
Competition makes the other companies work their asses off.
No X360 would have meant a Toshiba/Sony GPU with a cell config of god knows how few SPEs!
Instead , we get an Nvidea GPU and a 7 SPE Cell... etc.... etc...
Look where that speculation got the PSP in Japan.
Competition makes the other companies work their asses off.
No X360 would have meant a Toshiba/Sony GPU with a cell config of god knows how few SPEs!
Instead , we get an Nvidea GPU and a 7 SPE Cell... etc.... etc...
Look where that speculation got the PSP in Japan.
SolidSnakex
Member
Jonnyram said:
No I don't want it done in that way. But the way it's been over the past few years, I don't see a problem with that trend going on. For alot of gamers they can only buy 1 system, so for them its good to know there's one they can choose to get most of the best games in that gen.
Ninja Scooter
Member
i could care less about the "industry". I have nothing invested in that shit. I buy the good games i like, i dont' buy the stuff i don't like. Its a very simple equation for me, and anything that keeps me from having to pay an extra $400 to play a game or two that look like something i might like is all good in my book. If one company monopolizes everything, and starts raising prices, or making games i don't like, i'll stop buying and find a new hobby.
SolidSnakex said:
Absolutely not.
Jesus, you can't seriously believe this? Fuck, we'd be stuck on the GBA for the next 10-15 years if the PSP never came to be. We'd be paying $70-80 for cartridge games still.
Competition drives the industry forward. No competition = complacency.
Here's the thing. I do not believe in the ONE CONSOLE FUTURE. Rather, I believe in the one platform/media future. I want games to be like DVD movies and music CD's. Buy any player you want, and buy any game you want. It works on any player. The controller is standard.
This is practically what many people are arguing in favor for. The problem is that a similar method was tried by Panasonic and it failed miserably. On top of that, there would always be companies that feel they're better off by working outside of a standard platform even if it is to the detriment of consumers.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
um, PSP didn't have two 100 million selling predecessors. It's like apples compared to 100 million oranges.DCharlie said:
SolidSnakex
Member
Spike said:
There's never going to be a one console future, there's always going to be competition. All i'm saying is that its not a bad thing to have a console that's the leader so that those who only want 1 console can get it and know they'll get most of the great games that gen. Either from them being multiplatform or exclusives.
SolidSnakex
Member
Spike said:
Well one is Sony's first portable, one is the follow up to what's set to be the most popular console ever.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
That's why it had a solid launch in all three territories, but the lack of software (which starts to get remedied tomorrow with Legends) caused the post-launch lull. Do you think a no-name handheld would sell as well as the PSP did? Also, the handheld market is virgin territory for Sony, minus that PS1 VMU think only released in Japan and you really can't count that.Spike said:
Sort of outside the discussion, but are you making nonsensical arguments just to make them or do you actually believe what you are saying?
SolidSnakex
Member
That doesn't matter, it didn't change that Nintendo was releasing a new portable in a market they've dominated for years and Sony was releasing their first in that market. In the console market, Sony is the leader. They created the most popular console ever with the PSone, now they've got the PS2 which is on track to top that.
sonycowboy
Member
Spike said:
You might want to give it an extra month or two
SolidSnakex
Member
Spike said:
Because the markets are very different. If your handheld success measured how you did with consoles then Nintendo wouldn't be in 3rd place with their console and first with their handheld.
I'm having flashbacks again. I made this argument prior to the PS2 launch. A single console is better for the user, full stop. As mentioned, you have 3rd party competition, which is better for us. Just look at trash like DOA that sells a bunch of copies b/c Team Ninja can flee to a system where they lack fighter competition. That certainly hasn't benefited the Xbox fighter fans. It also saves money on hardware, and you are guaranteed all games in a single place. This is largely why there is always a dominant leader. Hell, even the SNES held a strong marketshare while it was on sale. The Genny had a lead, and the SNES came up and snatched it. Hardware competition benefits hardware. That's it.
Right now, the PS3 and 360 are set in stone. Nothing will change for the duration of the generation. So I don't see how continued hardware competition benefits a damn thing. There will always be new challengers to the market, which is what keeps the hardware progression going. Nintendo is an anomaly that is getting serious competition primarily b/c they have been sluggish on the hardware front. If the PSP fell by the wayside, it would be b/c the consumer doesn't care about hardware, and just wants games. And all games will then consolidate on the DS, and it will end up being a better deal for the user. Right now, if you want GTA, you really have to go to the PSP (sorry, GTA is now a 3D franchise, DS fans). If you want Nintendogs *snicker* or Pokemon, you have to go to the DS. More hardware to buy puts a frowny face on.
I don't get this competition argument. What matters is games. What drives games competition is 3rd party competition, not MS vs. Sony. EA has managed to avoid this by buying up the competition, or just buying licenses. But if they were forced to compete with NFL2K or other football games, then we would see continued progression in the football genre. The one console future is the one console present and past. Soon there'll be a one handheld future as well, b/c it looks like Sony might have bought themselves at least another swing in the handheld market should this one fail. The situation in Japan isn't pretty, but they still aren't being blown out of the water...yet. The window there is closing fast, but as some here are saying, nothing is certain. The Saturn was ahead at one point too, but then the PS1 went on to punish it something fierce in Japan. The same could happen with key software releases and maybe an actually attractive price. I'm not saying it'll happen, and honestly don't expect it. But hey, if we can't discount the 360 challenging the PS3, I certainly don't think it's outlandish to think the PSP will challenge the DS/GBA2.
That said, there is really no hope in EU or JP for the competition. To say otherwise borders on being foolhardy. Even in the US, where it's believed MS has a realistic chance, it wasn't even close this gen. When you put it in perspective, Sony sold more units in Japan alone (the smallest territory) than MS sold worldwide. In the US, when the dust has finally settled, the PS2 may have well doubled the Xbox's global sales. Momentum, marketshare and mindshare are in their favor. The game is their's to lose. If that sounds fanboyish, so be it. PEACE.
Right now, the PS3 and 360 are set in stone. Nothing will change for the duration of the generation. So I don't see how continued hardware competition benefits a damn thing. There will always be new challengers to the market, which is what keeps the hardware progression going. Nintendo is an anomaly that is getting serious competition primarily b/c they have been sluggish on the hardware front. If the PSP fell by the wayside, it would be b/c the consumer doesn't care about hardware, and just wants games. And all games will then consolidate on the DS, and it will end up being a better deal for the user. Right now, if you want GTA, you really have to go to the PSP (sorry, GTA is now a 3D franchise, DS fans). If you want Nintendogs *snicker* or Pokemon, you have to go to the DS. More hardware to buy puts a frowny face on.
I don't get this competition argument. What matters is games. What drives games competition is 3rd party competition, not MS vs. Sony. EA has managed to avoid this by buying up the competition, or just buying licenses. But if they were forced to compete with NFL2K or other football games, then we would see continued progression in the football genre. The one console future is the one console present and past. Soon there'll be a one handheld future as well, b/c it looks like Sony might have bought themselves at least another swing in the handheld market should this one fail. The situation in Japan isn't pretty, but they still aren't being blown out of the water...yet. The window there is closing fast, but as some here are saying, nothing is certain. The Saturn was ahead at one point too, but then the PS1 went on to punish it something fierce in Japan. The same could happen with key software releases and maybe an actually attractive price. I'm not saying it'll happen, and honestly don't expect it. But hey, if we can't discount the 360 challenging the PS3, I certainly don't think it's outlandish to think the PSP will challenge the DS/GBA2.
That said, there is really no hope in EU or JP for the competition. To say otherwise borders on being foolhardy. Even in the US, where it's believed MS has a realistic chance, it wasn't even close this gen. When you put it in perspective, Sony sold more units in Japan alone (the smallest territory) than MS sold worldwide. In the US, when the dust has finally settled, the PS2 may have well doubled the Xbox's global sales. Momentum, marketshare and mindshare are in their favor. The game is their's to lose. If that sounds fanboyish, so be it. PEACE.
AFAIK, pre-production on FFVII on PSone began in late '94, a month or so before the system even released in Japan. Installed base projections had absolutely nothing to do with Square's shift from Nintendo to Sony; it was mainly due to the direction Square wanted to take the franchise (requiring massive storage) and, something that many people overlook, the appeal of Sony's then unheard of royalty fees, which were almost half that of Nintendo's (who has been, and still is, notorious for their high fees). Sony still offers the lowest royalty fees around, and IMO that is still one of the primary draws to develop for PlayStation platforms versus competing consoles.
And as for citing the PSP's failure to overtake the DS, I don't think many are being entirely fair. We have to remember the system is behind, collectively, over 10 months in terms of being on store shelves in all three territories. And it is still running neck and neck with Nintendo in two of those territories. I will be surprised, and I'm sure others will be as well, if the PSP isn't ahead in WW sales by next summer, and that's a pretty big achievement in my eye.
Remember, the PSone didn't decimate Nintendo immediately, it took over 3 years for it to pull away. And while Sony is dominating the industry now, they're the newbies in the handheld arena, which Nintendo has basically had a monopoly on for nearly 20 years! I think the fact that the PSP is doing as well as it is in less than a year's time is quite the testament to the PlayStation brand; not the other way around.
Shit, this thread is about GTA... IMO, I don't think Rockstar will change their dev strategy from this gen; PS3 exclusive first, then on to 360 and PC the following summer. Franchises have crashed and burn when changing platforms (RE), and I'm betting R* will follow Konami's lead with MGS, and play it safe with Sony.
And as for citing the PSP's failure to overtake the DS, I don't think many are being entirely fair. We have to remember the system is behind, collectively, over 10 months in terms of being on store shelves in all three territories. And it is still running neck and neck with Nintendo in two of those territories. I will be surprised, and I'm sure others will be as well, if the PSP isn't ahead in WW sales by next summer, and that's a pretty big achievement in my eye.
Remember, the PSone didn't decimate Nintendo immediately, it took over 3 years for it to pull away. And while Sony is dominating the industry now, they're the newbies in the handheld arena, which Nintendo has basically had a monopoly on for nearly 20 years! I think the fact that the PSP is doing as well as it is in less than a year's time is quite the testament to the PlayStation brand; not the other way around.
Shit, this thread is about GTA... IMO, I don't think Rockstar will change their dev strategy from this gen; PS3 exclusive first, then on to 360 and PC the following summer. Franchises have crashed and burn when changing platforms (RE), and I'm betting R* will follow Konami's lead with MGS, and play it safe with Sony.
SolidSnakex
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
I don't think it looked much more realistic
I'd prefer for it to keep the cartoony look instead of going for ultra realism.
What are you talking about? No one is talking about only one console ever released at a time. HW competition exists at the start of a gen in one form or another. To price a system too high will kill the ability for sales to ever take off. That's where the competition ends, though. After that, one system should dominate and get all the games. If that company manages to raise the price AFTER launch, then I'd be pretty impressed. I don't think hardware prices will increase at all. If the PS3 is priced prohibitively, the competition stands a better chance of breaking into the market. I think your argument is flawed in that you assume a system will exist in a vaccuum. I think what people here are arguing is what has happened in the past. A few systems launch somewhat close together, but one owns like 80% of the market. That 80% marketshare assures like 90% of the games, which is a good deal IMO. And initial prices have to remain in check b/c there are still options available.Jonnyram said:
The last two gens have pretty much been single-console gens. Has Sony raised the price on their system after the fact? No. And AFAICS, MS has raised the price this gen despite catching a rootdown. PEACE.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
And you know what, they haven't lowered it either when companies like EA expected them to. The reason being there was no reason for them to drop it because it was selling.
The other thing is i like having multiple consoles - the Xbox / GC / NGC all have their strengths and weaknesses. I like that set up.
Anyways, to add on to jonnyrams statement. Companies are in this for the money - if we have one company totally dominate the industry , we'd be pushing out to longer cycles and less enthusiasm or pressure to develop new hardware.
Yup, and is there really a problem with that? My GC-owning ass has long since regretted the purchase. Only 2M units removed from the Xbox, it has fuck all for software. My PS2 definitely served me better overall for games. I also had a Genny first, then a SNES, and remember missing out on crucial games due to the split. Having a single system that was dominating always seemed to work out better in long run IMO. I don't see how buying multiple systems saves anyone money, or improves competition. PEACE.DCharlie said:
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Why? Because he's black? I was on your side too.Fight for Freeform said:
right now, we're debating a lot of stuff we know nothing about. If the next GTA does indeed se eitself as an exclusive title on the X360, then Microsoft has something huge, as it will be the first major announced franchise that's exclusive to the X360. It'd be a great move in the west, where the 360 has much, much more mindshare. If Rockstar continues with their trend of one major GTA a year, I would not put a next fall release of the next GTA as an impossibility.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
How has improvement in hardware due to competition not been a major benefit to gamers? Do you really think if Nintendo managed to hold a kung-fu grip on the industry for the last 20 years and Sony and/or MS never stepped in to challenge the throne we'd have nearly the amount of R&D dedicated to silicon we have powering graphic technology these days? Or the advancements in gaming that have resulted from it? Pardon the quixotic fools who long for the 2D glory days but I'll take the constant push toward the cutting edge (thanks to competition) everytime. If that means 2, 3 or even 4 console future than by all means. Lack of competition leads to stagnation, on every level.
I think most people feel Sony is going to continue its dominance this gen, maybe not as dramatic as the last 5 years but it'll still have firm control over the industry. And I think a lot of gamers banking on the 360 as their core gaming device are applying a lot of wishful thinking to their logic to be honest. But I dont see how anyone no matter what brand you have tatooed on your ass cant see that at the very least MS (or whoever may make a bid in the future) continuing to keep Sony honest in this business, is ultimately whats good for it.
Now MS as dominant market leader... thats something to honestly be afraid of.
I think most people feel Sony is going to continue its dominance this gen, maybe not as dramatic as the last 5 years but it'll still have firm control over the industry. And I think a lot of gamers banking on the 360 as their core gaming device are applying a lot of wishful thinking to their logic to be honest. But I dont see how anyone no matter what brand you have tatooed on your ass cant see that at the very least MS (or whoever may make a bid in the future) continuing to keep Sony honest in this business, is ultimately whats good for it.
Now MS as dominant market leader... thats something to honestly be afraid of.
That was really a rather pathetic responce.Mooreberg said:
The reason Square left Nintendo was because they viewed the PS as being more profitable and beneficial for them to develop for. The reasons for that view are irrelevant to this debate. For GTA, an earlier release could be their "installed base," a great big money-hat could be their "storage medium." Who knows what the 360 might offer? If R* thinks it'll be to their advantage to GTA4 on the 360 first, then no amount of forum "discussion" will change that. It is much too early to say "never."
Also, "screw-ups" aren't generally considered "screw-ups" until after the fact. There are plenty of areas for the PS3 to fail and succeed. The same stands for the other systems. It won't be another 3-4 years before we can say, "'Who' should have done 'what'".
I don't think next-gen will be all that different from this gen, nor do I think R* will abandon Sony like Square did Nintendo. I don't really believe that GTA4 will debute on anything but a Sony platform, but I've seen so many people self-owned by fanboy arrogance (myself included), I've learned that these "discussions" are just laughable.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Yeah, then they can buy Sony and Nintendo before heading out to brunch.Amused_To_Death said:What prevents Microsoft from buying Rockstar's parent company and making GTA exclusive to the Xbox360? Halo and GTA in the hands of Microsoft, Sony is dead in the water...Console war is over!!!
If anything, I'd think PSP would be a good example of how not simple the task of going against a very dominant market leader of a segment is.DCharlie said:
Technical feasibility?Spike said:
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Mrbob said:
Seriously do most people realize what GTA was like last gen before GTA3?
Not really?
Exactly.